-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I have written a lot of bills and amendments. I have read even more.

I am absolutely confounded by the language of this proposal, S. 3101, by my friend and colleague from Florida. There are so many issues bouncing around in this proposal of a serious nature that we would be foolish to do this by voice vote here immediately in the Senate. This deserves a real hearing, a real investigation, because it involves a lot of elements that affect many people personally, many families personally. We are talking about reproductive rights. We are talking about personal freedom.

I don't have a medical license. Some of my colleagues like to practice medicine on the floor of the Senate. I tend to listen to the experts on the subject. But I want to put this in perspective, if I can, for a moment.

At issue here is the issue of surrogacy. How do I explain that in a few words as a layman? It is basically a person who says: This may not be a fertilized fetus that I have been responsible for creating, but I am willing to allow my body to have this fetus during the gestational period until its birth.

That is the surrogacy involved in it.

Let's put this into perspective for a moment, if we can. How many live births are there in the United States each year? There are 3.6 million.

First, let's go in vitro fertilization because that is part of this conversation too. How many in vitro fertilization births are there out of the 3.6 million births in this country? There were 100,000--2.6 percent--in 2023 that were in vitro fertilization

Surrogacy. How many gestational surrogacy births in the United States are there each year? I would ask the Senator from Florida. He may know, but I will tell him. It is somewhere between 5- and 6,000. It is a fraction of a percentage.

Now, involved in this debate is the belief by some that we should allow no surrogacy. I am not one of those people.

Let me tell you a story of a family I know. Husband--father and mother decided they wanted to have a family. They went to great lengths through IVF so that she could become pregnant. It was a tragedy to them personally when they lost the baby late in the pregnancy. She was crushed.

Her sister, who is a medical doctor, said: It appears you have some problems with delivering a child. Let me suggest to you that if you go through IVF, I will be the surrogate mother and carry the baby for you and your husband.

They agreed. She went forward with it. And wouldn't you know, shortly afterward, the IVF worked for the original mother, and she became pregnant as well. So sisters were pregnant by the same father and mother in this situation. It was an act of kindness and courage on the part of her sister to help them out. If you saw them in the park today with their little boy and little girl, you wouldn't pick them out of a crowd, but through IVF and through surrogacy, they have a family that they dreamed of.

I think that is the right thing to do--legally and morally the right thing to do. Surrogacy has its place. It is an exceptional procedure. When there are 5- or 6,000 a year in America, it is certainly not one that really can be argued is part of any large conspiracy.

But there are actually--we have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee--there are actually Republicans who believe--listen to this; it sounds preposterous--they believe there is some kind of effort in a nation like China to have babies born in the United States and then bring them back to China and prepare them to come back to the United States someday to undermine our government or something. We have had hearings on that. When you ask them ``How can you prove what you just said?'' they have no evidence. But it is a conspiracy theory, and it is part of the calculation behind this amendment.

This bill is purportedly about protecting our national security from foreign adversaries and protecting children from exploitation and trafficking. If you want to introduce a bill to deal with trafficking or exploitation of children or others, count me in, but this bill goes so much further.

The Senator from Florida pointed out at one point a horrifying story of more than 20 children birthed by surrogate mothers. In one case, they were found abused and neglected in a home outside of Los Angeles.

I am not in favor of those abuses. I join him in stopping human trafficking. But this bill would not stop child abuse or trafficking. It would not prevent espionage by foreign adversaries. This bill will do nothing to prevent the situation that I just described in Los Angeles.

Instead of targeting bad actors, this bill would restrict who can access or enter into surrogacy contracts based solely on the nationality of the parties involved. This bill is not only grounded in an objection to birthright citizenship but in some sort of a weird, unusual, national security theory that goes behind this.

For the record, the Supreme Court has decided on birthright citizenship. And for the record, the 14th Amendment is as clear as can be: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court did not take long to agree with that, and I think that is part of the objection that is behind this amendment--the objection to that Supreme Court decision.

Instead of targeting bad actors, this bill would restrict who can access or enter into surrogacy contracts based solely on the nationality of the parties involved.

This bill voids all surrogacy agreements between a surrogate parent who is inside the United States at the time of the birth or who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and a prospective parent who is a national or resident of certain countries.

The bill criminalizes assisting with making or executing such a surrogacy agreement in any way.

The bill's plan would impact all surrogacy agreements with nationals from Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. It does not allow for consideration of how long these parties have been in the United States or the nature of the surrogacy agreement. For example, it would prevent an Iranian asylum seeker and her spouse from starting a family.

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision holding birthright citizenship as the law of the land, this bill reads like the latest MAGA conspiracy attempt to achieve what they were unable to achieve in the Supreme Court--ending birthright citizenship.

State lawmakers from Florida and Texas are using similar legislation to chip away at access to reproductive rights. There was a controversy, and you may remember it, as to whether or not in vitro fertilization is consistent with MAGA principles. They ultimately announced that it was, that IVF was fine, but that just shows you that they have run into a number of cases already where the principles do not bear out the reality of life in America.

Some are pushing to ban surrogacy altogether. The case I gave you is a good illustration in my mind of why we shouldn't do that.

They argue that the surrogacy agreement amounts to slavery and violated the 13th Amendment, a preposterous argument. Voiding and criminalizing surrogacy agreements with nationals from certain countries looks like the first step in a broader troubling plan to restrict surrogacy.

Countless couples, families, and individuals facing fertility challenges rely on access to surrogacy and other reproductive services to have children.

Most people seeking surrogacy in the United States are Americans. Some are foreign nationals who reside in the United States; others are foreigners who are turning to surrogacy in the United States because of limited access in their home countries.

I support thoughtful efforts to ensure that access to surrogacy in the United States is not exploited by those seeking to abuse our laws. This bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and am ranking member.

I would be happy to work with the Senator from Florida on the complex issues that he raises with the amendment. We won't agree on everything, but we certainly would agree when we talk about exploitation and human trafficking.

This bill does nothing to address those two issues, which are a major concern for me as well as the sponsor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source